RAM LABHAYA J: This petn of revision under S. 115, C. P. C., is directed against an order of the D. C., Sibsagar, dated 13-9-1948. This order was passed by him in his capacity as Comr under the Workmen's Compensation Act. By a letter dated, 16-9-1948, the petnr was informed through the President, Jorhat Mill Mazdur Sangha, that the accident in ques­tion was due to his negligence & as such he was not entitled to compensation. The order evidently was made before the date of the com­munication above referred to. It appeared on the Order Sheet & in point of fact it was ori­ginally a note put up for the perusal of the Comr. The opinion it embodied was to the effect that the accident complained of was due to the negligence of the petnr. This note was signed by the Comr & it was on this basis that the petnr was later informed that he had no valid claim to compensation. (2) The petnr's case is that he presented an appln under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the Ct of the D. C., Sibsagar, claiming com­pensation against Hanuman Oil & Rice Mill of Jorhat represented by its proprietors Udonia Agarwalla & Ghanshyam Das Agarwalla on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of & in the course of his employment. This petn, it is stated, was sum­marily dismissed. The petnr was not heard at all. He was not given any opportunity to sup­port his petn by any evidence. The order was passed in his absence. The order also does not refer to any material on which it is based. It was really a note from a Ministerial Officer of the Ct. It was converted into an order by the Comr's signature. The learend counsel for the petnr in these circumstances, alleges that the order is wholly without jurisdiction. It cannot toe treated as an order covered by S. 30, Work­men's Compensation Act & that it is, therefore open to this Ct to interfere in revision even though no appeal was preferred against the order dismissing the petn. (3) Mr. Sen, the learned counsel for the Oppo­site Party, has contended that the order dis­allows the claim for compensation in full & is, therefore, completely covered by Cl. (a) of S. 30, Workmen's Compensation Act. An appeal was competent. This remedy was not availed of admittedly. (3) Mr. Sen, the learned counsel for the Oppo­site Party, has contended that the order dis­allows the claim for compensation in full & is, therefore, completely covered by Cl. (a) of S. 30, Workmen's Compensation Act. An appeal was competent. This remedy was not availed of admittedly. The revision petn in these cir­cumstances, would not lie under S. 115, C. P. C. (4) The order in question is apparently opposed to the principles of natural justice. It .has also been passed in contumacious disregard of the provisions contained in the Workmen's (Compensation Act. The learned counsel for the opposite party has not made any effort to show that the Comr had any power to dismiss the petn without affording any opportunity to the ..petnr to substantiate his allegation contained in this petn. The order itself was passed in his absence & the contents of the order disclose that the Comr did not apply his mind to the case. He had no material before him for com­ing to the conclusion that the accident was due to the negligence of the petnr himself. The 'Order apparently involves a flagrant abuse of jurisdiction which has occasioned manifest in­justice. The order in these circumstances can­not be regarded as failing under any clause of S. 30 of the Act. In our opinion it is altogether null & void. (5) In 'Mt. Dirji v. Sm. Goalin', 21 Pat 173: (AIR (29) 1942 Pat 33), relied on by the learned counsel for the petnr, it was held that the Comr acting under the Workmen's Compen­sation Act was a Ct & was subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the H. C. In an P. B. case reported in 'Mt. Dirji v. Sm. Goalin', AIR (23) 1941 Pat 65: (20 Pat 373 F B), the question whether as a Ct the Comr would be subordinate to the H. C. for purposes of S. 115, C. P. C., was left open. We are inclined to the view that was taken in 'Mt. Dirji v. Mt. Goalin', 21 Pat 173: (AIR (29) 1942 Pat 33). We have 'held above that the order in question is void & is not covered by S. 30 of the Act. In these circumstances it is open to us to interfere in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction with •what we regard as an apparent miscarriage of justice. Dirji v. Mt. Goalin', 21 Pat 173: (AIR (29) 1942 Pat 33). We have 'held above that the order in question is void & is not covered by S. 30 of the Act. In these circumstances it is open to us to interfere in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction with •what we regard as an apparent miscarriage of justice. (6) The learned counsel for the opposite party as representing Mohan Lal Ajitsaria pointed out that the petn before the Comr was directed against Hanuman Oil & Rice Mill only. The name of the Proprietor was not mentioned. The petn of levision was against the Mill though Ghanshyam who died long ago & Udonia Agarwalla who had no existence. It was a fictitious name. Ghanshyam was the original owner of the mill. He sold it to Mohan-lal, who has himself put in appearance when substituted service was effected on the pro­prietor of the Hanuman Oil & Rice Mill. He further states that the Mill has been sold by him to Messrs. Jorhat Industries, Ltd. He urges that it was not open to the petnr to claim any relief against him & the claim in question was barred by time. (7) From the facts stated by Mohanlal, it appears that he was the proprietor of the Mill at the time of the accident. The accident is alleged to have taken place on 27-2-1947. The alleged sale to Messrs. Jorhat Industries, Ltd., .came in 1949. The petn in the Ct below & in this Ct was against the Hanuman Oil & Rice Mill, but wrong persons were mentioned as the representatives of the Mill. Mohanlal him­self had put in appearance. On behalf of the petnr an appln has been put in praying that Mohanlal be treated as a party & his alleged assignee, Messrs. Jorhat Industries, Ltd., be also impleaded as the proprietor. A Rule was issued to Messrs. Jorhat Industries, Ltd., to show cause why they should not be added as an opposite party in the case. They have not opposed the Rule. Mr. Sen, however, urges that the claim itself has become barred & there­fore no fresh names can now be included in the list of parties. (8) We think it is unnecessary to decide this question at this stage. The Mill would be re­presented in the proceedings by Mohanlal & his alleged assignee, Messrs. They have not opposed the Rule. Mr. Sen, however, urges that the claim itself has become barred & there­fore no fresh names can now be included in the list of parties. (8) We think it is unnecessary to decide this question at this stage. The Mill would be re­presented in the proceedings by Mohanlal & his alleged assignee, Messrs. Jorhat Industries, Ltd., & it will be open to them to contest their liability on all legal grounds including the ground that they have been impleaded after the period of limitation has expired. Their inclusion will not preclude them from contend­ing that the claim against them is barred on account of their being impleaded in revision for the first time at a very late stage of the proceedings. The petn is allowed. The order of the Comr dated 30-3-1948 is set aside. The case is demanded to the Comr with the direction that he shall proceed according to law & dis­pose of the petn in accordance with the pro­visions contained in the Workmen's Compen­sation Act. (9) THADANI C. J: I agree. V.B.B. Petition allowed.